Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: jelv on July 22, 2020, 07:20:59 PM
-
Just laying this down as a marker: I have a strong suspicion that in the next few weeks there will suddenly be a fair amount of discussion about global warming and particularly the melting of the Arctic sea ice. Apart from the fact that year on year more of it melts, all the soot from the fires in Siberia makes the ice darker and it absorbs more heat, so melts faster.
-
As long as it comes from convincing scientific resources, rather than TV celebrities and Swedish school children, I’ll certainly be interested to follow any such developments. :)
-
Swedish school children
Pffffft :giggle:
-
Unlike total and utter prats like Nigel Lawson, Greta hasn't ever at any stage pretended to be an expert herself. All she has done, and all the campaign she has started has done, is say that there is overwhelming evidence from well over 90% of actual scientists and that governments need to listen to the science and start to do something urgently, not fudge figures to pretend to be doing something.
If what I expect to happen does, it will be hard facts from a very reputable source and I expect Greta will be publicising the source.
-
Greta is a puppet.
she needs to go back to school and complete her education before she preaches to anyone about anything. she isn't even an expert in living yet.
are you suggesting that 90% of the scientists aren't listing to the science?
global warming is a cyclic event, it would have happened whether we were here or not. yes the human race may be accelerating it, but that's the cost of creating the world we live in.
-
Imho, we shouldn’t take upon ourselves to publicise things we are not qualified to understand. Doing so presents two dangers...
1.There’s a danger of publicising bad science, science that is flawed.
2. There’s a danger of misunderstanding the science, even if it is good, possibly drawing the wrong conclusions, and publicising them.
Once an individual like Greta intervenes, true scientific debate becomes more difficult. I’m not qualified to participate in the debate at technical level but it certainly makes more sceptical. Same goes for Lawson’s interventions by the way, I am automatically sceptical of anything he may say on climate science. Though that worries me less as he gets less media coverage,
Unlike total and utter prats like Nigel Lawson
May I suggest that we avoid abusive language? Being rude about a person with whom you (and many of us) disagree does not prove them to be wrong, and nor does prove you to be right..
-
oh please! prat is hardly abusive language.
as is often said, just because you are offended doesn't make you right.
-
Can’t we just play nicely, for once?
-
Since we’ve already referred to ‘hard facts’, and that expression is often used to convince the masses of certain aspects of climate science, I wonder if it worth pausing to think about the difference between facts and theories.
To me, it would be a fact that Siberian wildfires are taking place. But saying they are caused by global warming caused in turn by human activity is a theory, not a fact. Equally, forming a model based on a theory and using it to forecast the future, cannot ever produce a fact, imho.
We still refer to Einstein’s theories of relativity for example but while most physicists seem happy to accept the theories and to run with them, I don’t often hear them called ‘facts of relativity’.
This link discusses how scientific theories differ from facts, also bringing ‘laws’ into the debate, which are something else again.
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
-
don't confuse scientific theory and theory.
they are not the same thing
scientific theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
-
are you suggesting that 90% of the scientists aren't listing to the science?
Why is it that people deliberately misinterpret what we say to suit their agenda? I posted:
and that governments need to listen to the science
-
i was asking it as a question, and i have no agenda.
but if you think i do then i'd be all ears to hear what you think it is.
-
Now second lowest (after 2012) and still heading down steeply.
For the years 1979-1990 the minimum average arctic sea ice extent was 6.95 million km2.
For the years 2011-2019 the minimum average arctic sea ice extent was 4.49 million km2.
In 2012 the minimum of 3.387 million km2 was recorded on September 17th. Yesterday it was 4.003 million km2, 0.088 million km2 lower than the previous day.
With around 10-15 days more with the ice melting it looks unlikely we'll see a new record low, but it's already significantly lower than the next lowest at 4.165 million km2 recorded 10/09/2016.
-
I'm a simple man on this topic.
It was my understanding that climate change was more about weather patterns moving around the globe, so previously colder areas would become warmer and previously hot places would become colder?
So in that theory, though its correct to say the ice in the arctic is melting, isn't ice forming somewhere else?
-
No.
More ice is melting than is forming.
That's why sea levels are rising.
-
Regarding Einstein’s ‘theories’ of relativity. There are two systems: ‘special relativity’ (SR) which relates to space, time, light, dynamics, motion and electromagnetism as viewed in reference frames that are ‘inertial’ (that is, in free fall, non-rotating and non-accelerating) and where there is either no gravity or the spatial range of experiments is very small. SR’s results are experimental fact as well as an historical theory. SR accords with all measurements in relevant tests.
General relativity is Einstein’s theory of gravity and handles accelerating reference frames too: it predicts that spacetime is curved, that light travels along curved paths in the presence of massive bodies, that time runs at a different speed down the bottom of a mine shaft, predicts black holes, gravitational waves and the expansion of the universe. These phenomena have all now been observed and GR is a stunning success. It has passed many tests thrown against it and keeps passing them. However there are several massive problems with it and we know GR can only be an interim theory, one which needs to be replaced. Firstly it doesn’t accord with the other major physics theoretical framework which is ‘Quantum Mechanics’ and so the consensus is that GR needs to be replaced by a new theory. Secondly, GR doesn’t handle a number of observations: one is the speed of rotation of stars in galaxies at different distances from the galactic centre; the speed vs distance is wrong. Also the speeds of galaxies themselves in clusters of galaxies is wrong. To try and save GR something called ‘dark matter’ has been proposed: extra matter that doesn’t shine and doesn’t absorb light. Also the expansion of the universe, which was discovered in the late 1920s, has now been discovered to be speeding up. This is very surprising and against GR, so in order to save GR something called dark energy has been made up, which is a nonsensical type of antigravity. GR has a control knob in it, which is a tunable number called the ‘cosmological constant’ (Λ) and turning this knob can create a dark energy type effect, but this is all just a band-aid. So GR is both a stunning success and a failure in two different senses: theory that doesn’t fit with QM, and a situation where we have measurements that GR doesn’t predict or which are contrary to GR without the assumption of ‘dark’ band-aids. Even though there are these critical problems, GR is still the current working interim theory of space, time, light, motion and gravity, tested with success on a scale of, say, the size of the solar system, but with possible problems on larger scales and maybe a huge failure when applied to the entire universe. GR still urgently needs more testing. But it’s the best thing we have.
-
Global warming.... or cooling? https://watchers.news/2020/09/02/zharkova-study-modern-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2053/ ;)
-
So basically you are saying that for the next 30 years we can carry on regardless knowing the lower output from the sun will negate our stupidity?
What happens after then? Frightening how selfish people have become and not caring about the lives their descendants will lead!
-
i think the vast majority of people don't really care what happens after they are dead, and i'm probably in that camp.
considering the pandemic we have to live with at the moment i think most people will be coming out of this with the "live for the now" mentality, and can you really argue with that?
is that selfish? probably, but you have to do what's best for you.
if it wasn't for the industrial age and the the bad things is has brought to world then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion on an internet forum in the first place. we live in house kept warm by gas and electricity, we use devices that rely on batteries, we rely on transport to get around.
global warming isn't being help by all the things that has made our existence much better, but it's not the sole reason for it. the cyclic nature of the environment has a big part to play in it also.
live for the now, you might be dead tomorrow.